Author and former activist Mark Lynas addressing the NSW Farmwriters in Sydney.

ABC: David Claughton

"There are hundreds upon hundreds of mostly independent studies which establish that there's no safety concern about the technology," he said.

"There are four or five, maybe a dozen that raise some issues, and they do so by using flawed scientific techniques."

Mr Lynas said environment organisations such as Greenpeace have pulled back from their opposition as well, as it contradicted their position on climate change — where they argued the body of evidence was clear and climate change was real.

Greenpeace says better options available

A Greenpeace spokesperson said it had major environmental, economic and climate change concerns about genetically modified crops.

It said monocultures were more susceptible to extreme weather events and it pointed to a 2008 report by a group of 400 leading scientists, part of the UN-funded international Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), that found "ecological farming" was a better option than genetically modified crops to provide healthy and nutritious food.

"We have known there are better options out there for more than 10 years but the biotech industry continues to falsely portray GM crops as the only option for increasing production — which is simply not true."

"While Greenpeace is not opposed to biotechnology in confined environments, like for example in medical sector for the development of drugs and pharmaceuticals, it is not the best option for widespread farming but instead threatens a corporate takeover of our food system," the spokesperson said.

Video Player failed to load.

National Press Club: Mark Lynas

Play

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

Young farmers want access to the latest GM technology to improve key crops like wheat and rice and to reduce the use of chemicals or improve their drought tolerance of nutritional value.

Landline: Marty McCarthy

Genetic modification has been a dirty word in Australia, tarred by the campaigns against the reputations of global corporations and the monoculture systems they have developed.

Mark Lynas said the problem for the technology started right at the beginning, when Monsanto decided to lead with Round Up Ready crops instead of crops that had a positive social or environmental impact.

"What happened with GMOs is perhaps the greatest science communication failure of the last half century," he said.

"It was a very poor choice for Monsanto to lead the deployment of the first GM trait with Round Up Ready.

"A technological innovation that had huge potential to transform farming in a more sustainable direction became demonised and seen by the entire environmental movement as something that ought to be blocked, banned and got rid of."

The CEO of tech consultancy AgThentic, Sarah Nolett, said that new players might help change the perception of the sector because they were not tarred with the same brush as old technology multinationals.

Gene editing, with its early applications in health, could also be a significant factor.

"I think one thing that's different about gene editing is that some of the initial use cases are in human health as opposed to agriculture," Ms Nolett said.

"So when you come out with a technology that can, for example, help people not get Alzheimer's, people are pretty excited about that.

"When we say 'we're applying that same technology to agriculture' that's a really different conversation."

Whether that will be enough to convince state governments in Australia to overturn bans on GM production remains to be seen.

Even before cases of strawberry sabotage crippled sales and cost the industry millions of dollars, Australian growers were despairing over dumping tonnes of perfectly good fruit that was too small or odd-shaped to find a market.